Category talk:Caprids
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by DCDuring in topic RFM discussion: May 2017–February 2020
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The family is called Caprinae so this makes the name match the family. —CodeCat 17:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support move, but to be clear, it's not a family but a subfamily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's a family that's a subfamily of its parent family. —CodeCat 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's at all not how this works. You might benefit from actually learning some biology before trying to reorganise our categories, especially what with the chordate business below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's just silly nomenclature from an obsolete age. Genetically there's no difference between order, family, kingdom, genus etc. I just call them all families, since that's what they are. A common ancestor and its descendants, a branch point in the family tree of life. Would you prefer it if I called them clades instead? —CodeCat 12:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that would be comprehensible. Also, none of these are defined genetically, so that's irrelevant, and it is currently a matter of some debate in evolutionary biology what (if any) kinds of clades are units of evolution. But I'll stop here, else I'd go on all day, and I spend enough time busy with this kind of thing that I don't need to do it in my free time! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's just silly nomenclature from an obsolete age. Genetically there's no difference between order, family, kingdom, genus etc. I just call them all families, since that's what they are. A common ancestor and its descendants, a branch point in the family tree of life. Would you prefer it if I called them clades instead? —CodeCat 12:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's at all not how this works. You might benefit from actually learning some biology before trying to reorganise our categories, especially what with the chordate business below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's a family that's a subfamily of its parent family. —CodeCat 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Benwing2, would you mind dealing with this one? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Beware of tendentious taxonomy, especially from those who don't labor in the vineyards. "Modern" terminology like "clade" loses information that is useful to almost all actual users of taxonomic names. Clade is useful for new hypotheses about the branching structure, especially early in the tree of life, but at the "levels" of class, order, family, genus, and species of extant organisms most taxonomy uses the ranks CodeCat cavalierly dismissed. Extinct organisms are more problematic leading to silly-looking cases of classes being parts of orders etc. An exception to the non-use of clades for extant organisms is in the field of plants (at least angiosperms) where clades are used beyond the rank of order. (See w:Angiosperm Phylogeny Group.) Taxonomists expend a great deal of effort to attempt to preserve older taxonomic nomenclature to help users of taxonomic literature. All of the databases of taxonomic names use the traditional ranks. DCDuring (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)